When Christ returned to the western shore of the lake, he
found a multitude of people awaiting his arrival. One of the rulers of the synagogue,
named Jairus, whose daughter of twelve years329329Strauss says
that this age of “twelve” was a mere fiction,
in imitation of the twelve years of the issue of blood. There is not a shadow of
reason to suppose that Luke’s statements are not literally correct in both instances;
but even if they were not, if a round number only is meant, and the one period modelled
after the other, the veracity of the narrative would be in nowise impeached. lay so ill that her death was hourly
expected, pressed through the throng to the Saviour, and besought him to go to his
house. He arose to grant the sorrowing father’s prayer, but the crowd detained them.

A woman who had suffered with an issue for twelve years, and had sought aid in vain
from physicians, approached him through the press from behind. She did not venture
to address him directly, but having formed the idea in her own way, she thought
that a sort of magical healing power streamed forth from his person, and that she
might be relieved of her malady simply by touching his garment. Her believing confidence,
although blended with erroneous conceptions, was not disappointed.

Christ felt that
some one had touched his robe,330330 Luke’s account could have been given by none but an eye-witness in such lively and
minute detail; e. g., Christ’s question, Peter’s answer, the repetition of the question,
etc. Moreover, Luke makes the cure immediate upon the touching of the garment; in
Matthew it follows the words of Christ in the usual way. Luke’s eye-witness had
the conception of the mode of cure that the woman herself had, and so interpreted
Christ’s words (viii., 46). and inquired who it was. Peter, forward as usual,
spoke for the disciples, and said (very candidly, doubtless, as he probably did
not observe the woman’s movement), “How canst thou be surprised, in the midst of
such a throng, that the people approach and touch thee!” But Christ repeated his
question, and the woman, who had not before ventured a word, expecting to be discovered,
fell trembling at his feet, and proclaimed
196before all what had happened to her. Jesus, kindly encouraging the
trembling heart, said to her, “Be
of good cheer, thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace.”331331 The narrative does not decide whether
the approach of the woman was known to Christ, and he healed her intentionally,
or whether the cure was a Divine operation, independently of him (a physical cause
being laid out of the case), caused by the woman’s faith, and thus serving to glorify
her trust in Christ.

329Strauss says
that this age of “twelve” was a mere fiction,
in imitation of the twelve years of the issue of blood. There is not a shadow of
reason to suppose that Luke’s statements are not literally correct in both instances;
but even if they were not, if a round number only is meant, and the one period modelled
after the other, the veracity of the narrative would be in nowise impeached.

330 Luke’s account could have been given by none but an eye-witness in such lively and
minute detail; e. g., Christ’s question, Peter’s answer, the repetition of the question,
etc. Moreover, Luke makes the cure immediate upon the touching of the garment; in
Matthew it follows the words of Christ in the usual way. Luke’s eye-witness had
the conception of the mode of cure that the woman herself had, and so interpreted
Christ’s words (viii., 46).

331 The narrative does not decide whether
the approach of the woman was known to Christ, and he healed her intentionally,
or whether the cure was a Divine operation, independently of him (a physical cause
being laid out of the case), caused by the woman’s faith, and thus serving to glorify
her trust in Christ.